Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

vena writes "The Star Tribune reports the House and Senate today agreed not to allow email surveillance of American citizens proposed by the Total Information Awareness program. Additionally, negotiators agreed to halt all future funding on the program without extensive consultation with Congress."

It would be excellent news if Poindexter didn't have a track recordof lying to Congress about what he was up to. Maybe they can finda good military officer, a colonel maybe, to make those reportsto Congress.

They didn't *win* anything. All "they" are required to do is issue a report to congress in 90 days detailing the system's function and scope. They aren't required to stop anything, assuming they file the appropriate paperwork.

A better version of the article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/12/politics/12PRIV. html (the one cited by the poster is a boiled-down version).

We still won something very valuable. After 9/11 *everything* was going through without so much as a question. At least now our elected representatives are saying, "hold on a minute," instead of just rolling over. The victory is that someone, somewhere is remembering that we have something called rights and they're at least taking the time to see if they apply.

Please stop deluding yourself. You haven't won anything, your e-mail has been getting scanned for years. Echelon is not some conspriacy theorists wet dream. It exists beyond all doubt. Your rights are meaningless when there are organisations that ignore them.

The United States government has gone to extreme lengths to keep ECHELON a secret. To this day, the U.S. government refuses to admit that ECHELON even exists. We know it exists because both the governments of Australia (through its Defence Signals Directorate) and New Zealand have admitted to this fact. (10) [aclu.org]

This "wall of silence" is beginning to erode. The first report on ECHELON was published in 1988. (11) [aclu.org] In addition, besides the revelations from Australia, the Scientific and Technical Options Assessment program office (STOA) of the European Parliament commissioned two reports which describe ECHELON's activities. These reports unearthed a startling amount of evidence, which suggests that Echelon's powers may have been underestimated. The first report, entitled "An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control," suggested that ECHELON primarily targeted civilians.

If you are not of the faint of heart, you can see the highly detailed 200 page report into the system here [eu.int] [pdf doc]. This report was originally reported in the news mid September, 2001. Obviously due to other news items, it wasn't widely reported and the whole affair was convienently swept under the carpet.

please tell Tom Daschle to stop suggesting
that we are not protected from terrorists if
you don't want the government to be able to
do anything about it.

We don't *NEED* protection from terrorists,
and the measures enacted so far have done
*nothing* but strip us of the very
conveniences and freedoms we would like
to protect.

You might point out that we have had no
real acts of domestic terrorism since
September 2001. True. But how often did
we experience such attacks *prior* to the
WTC attack? And, even if we *did* expect
something since that time, why would anyone
bother? Ever seen the Twilight Zone episode
"The Monsters are Coming to Maple Street"?
That about covers it.

As much as I hate the "if we don't blah, the
terrorists have already won", our attourney
general, and the OHS, and TIA, all *embody*
the ultimate goals of any potential terrorists.
Why should *real* terrorists waste their time
and effort doing what we will willingly,
even beggingly, do to ourselves? Personally,
I'd rather risk a quick death less likely
than getting struck by lightning, than have
the afforementioned whack-jobs supposedly
"protecting" us make a long and sedate life
not worth living. But then, I don't consider
myself a sheep. If you like having Ashcroft
herd you into a nice "secure" detention
cells, by all means beg for more. But leave
me the hell out of your plans.

How do you know they did nothing? They seem to have a lot more intelligence information now than they did before. We actually are expecting and prepared for an attack attempt this week instead of being caught totally offguard like in 2001. They say this is from surveliance... perhaps it is helping. You make broad, and very confident-sounding statemants, but you do not KNOW, you are making it up.

I take EVERYTHING my government tells me with a large amount of cynicism and suspicion.

As is your duty as a citizen of a (supposedly) free society.

Call me paranoid or a wacko

No. I'll call you a patriot since that is what you are by being "eternally vigilant".It's sad that so many people don't realise that going along with your government right or wrong isn't patriotism. It's treason.

Thank goodness for the handful of sensible people in Congress. When the Patriot Act sailed through with only one dissenter in the Senate (Feingold/Wis.) I wondered whether I had lost my mind.

You might point out that we have had no real acts of domestic terrorism since September 2001. True.

You probably don't live in the DC area, but we remember the anthrax attacks following 9/11. Still unsolved, aren't they? Then we had these bastard snipers killing a dozen unsuspecting people... one at a time... over a period of weeks. When you find yourself wondering whether you're taking a risk by opening the mail or merely standing outside, you have problems. You have terror.

Mentioned rarely, these attacks were likely all the work of Americans. So was Oklahoma City. The closest thing to a 9/11 follow-up was the "shoe bomber" Reid, a British subject. (Apparently they're worried about him in jail [cnn.com].) Hunting for "suspicious foreigners" would have done no good in any of these. Nor would the unpatriotic Patriot Act. I'm not certain what would have helped, but I am sure they're headed in the wrong direction, enacting the longtime wish list of certain interest groups without regard to the present problem.

We don't want to live in a police state, both because it would suck and because the terrorists would love it.

Now we have a code red or orange or tangerine, I forget, isn't that dandy. I understood the defcon system [fas.org] better.

Arrested and sent to Cuba, no. Greatly
inconvenienced to no gain for anyone,
yes. The leader of the Green party in my
state cannot currently fly because of thinly
veiled attempts to silence political
dissent. Along with several hundred (that
we know of) similarly harmless people
who have no means of getting off the
transportation blacklist created entirely
through illegal and due-process-denying
means.

What great conveniences and freedoms
have you personally given up because of
John Ashcroft?

Shall I go over the bill of rights
one at a time? Let's see... Privacy,
speech, religion, secure in my home,
search and seizure, state's rights,
using military for domestic law enforcement...
And those just from off the top of my head.
I could dig deeper.

but at least Ashcroft hasn't been
murdering entire religous sects and
pointing machine guns at innocent 6
year olds.

True enough. Reno seems to have made
that sufficiently unpopular that Ashcroft
hasn't (yet) dared continue her work.

Oh, and quit with the damn *stars*
around words. You look like a damn fool.

Ah, good ol' ad hominem, the last resort
of those with no better point to make. Yes,
I agree, I should use actual HTML tags in
this medium. Having used USENET long before
the web came around, however, I have an old
habit that has proven difficult to break. To
go so far as saying it makes me look like a
fool, however? I doubt it.

"Privacy is essential to the exercise of
free speech, free thought, and free
association. The courts have established a
First Amendment right to receive information
in a publicly funded library. Further, the
courts have upheld the right to privacy based
on the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
Many states provide guarantees of privacy
in their constitutions and statute law.
Numerous decisions in case law have defined
and extended rights to privacy."

It includes references (four for that paragraph
alone), if you want to argue with any specific
point.

Show me in the Bill of Rights were you are guaranteed a right to privacy.

IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

(Hint: its not in the Bill of Rights)

It is indeed the Bill of Rights that guarantees the protection of individual liberties; you'll remember that the federalists argued that no such things is necessary, because enumerating specific rights only means that the government can find ways to infringe upon other rights, that have not been explicitly enumerated. The anti-federalists, on the other hand, were afraid of a strong central government, and wanted a bill of rights to serve as an explicit social contract between the people and the government.

Green Party USA activist Nancy Oden was
prevented from boarding a plane to Chicago at the Bangor,
Maine International Airport and temporarily detained on
orders of military personnel stationed at the airport.
Below is an account of what happened by Nancy Oden
herself.

Then, on the other hand they're spying on international communication lines as much as possible (Echelon, Echelon II, etc...). Of course that's perfectly legitimate for them because it hardly affects privacy of the American people.

In most of the world we call different standards for different classifications "different standards".

Not double standards.

Uh... not in my "most of the world". Not in Webster's Dictionary's "most of the world" either:

Main Entry: double standard
Function: noun
Date: 1894

a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another; especially : a code of morals that applies more severe standards of sexual behavior to women than to men

One group would be americans, another group would be foreigners. Double means you have two specific standards and the contradiction is when you purport them to be general.

Your dictionary ruins my post. You're no fun. Slashdot is not a place for "facts". Please leave!:-)

No, but seriously, I think there is something missing there. A double standard is a standard which is applied inconsistently among consistent parties. (It's a double standard if men and women are treated differently in the workplace because they should be judged on their ability to do their job. It's not a double standard to have more stalls in a womens bathroom, because it actually takes longer per person to do ones duty . )

Because States are -- at their most basic levels -- cooperatives to protect the security of a group of people, then one would reason that it is quite legitimate to gather intelligence about other "cooperatives" because they are not "consitent" (They differ in a way that is relevant to the standard). On that basis, I have very relevant differences from the British person.

Now, if the U.S. demanded other countries to cease their spying -- THAT would be a double standard.

on the other hand they're spying on international communication lines as much as possible [...] because it hardly affects privacy of the American people.

Well, you have to look at this in a reasonable way. First off, overseas, the laws are different. If the US could consult a foreign court in order to get a wire-tap or anything else similiar to the way it is done in the US, there might not be a need for Echelon. As it is, the laws in foreign countries are not as flexible. That means, they don't have much choice but to spy illegially.

Interestingly, that was one of the reasons that PGP export was allowed: American companies operating abroad had to use easily-breakable encryption, becuase it was all they were allowed to take to their worldwide offices. Of course, that meant that the government of any country they operated in could decrypt their comms, and tip-off native companies in competition with them.

Not that the US would ever sink to such depths... *cough*arms-sales-contracts*cough*

You do realize that the US govenment exists to protect the people of the US, right? Sorry, if you're not a US citizen, you really shouldn't expect the US government to defend you, unless you are important to US interests.

I really do hope you're only joking, but allow me to remind you that the Constitution and Declaration of Independance do not suggest that governments somehow "assign" rights because of national origin, but are rather established to protect the people under their jurisdiction, because these are asserted
to be the inalienable rights of mankind. The equal protection clause in the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that all people under the jurisdiction of the United States are entitled to equal protection of the law. This principle has been upheld in the landmark case Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) [cornell.edu]. The court asserted that The guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality. [...]
Those subjects of the Emperor of China who have the right to temporarily or permanently reside within the United States, are entitled to enjoy the protection guaranteed by the Constitution and afforded by the laws.

We all know the US monitors its citizens like it or not. the problem comes when this information has to be used in court. It is not admisable as evidence if the information was gathered unlawfully. This is the reason they are trying to get it passed as a bill.

From the article: Lt. Cmdr. Donald Sewell, a Pentagon spokesman, defended the program, saying, "The Department of Defense still feels that it's a tool that can be used to alert us to terrorist acts before they occur." He added, "It's not a program that snoops into American citizens' privacy."

How can it not be a program that snoops into American citizens privacy? From past experience, I've found that the other issue is that once databases are available, they will be tapped for a variety of purposes not originally envisioned or intended.

"Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., senior Democrat on the subcommittee, said of the program, "Jerry's against it, and I'm against it, so we kept the Senate amendment." Of the Pentagon, he said, "They've got some crazy people over there."

One thing we've seen, is that terrorists are not stupid. Does Lt. Cmdr. Sewell really think that terrorists will communicate important details through e-mail? I suppose that if the threat of being discovered is there, it's less likely to be used, but there are varied ways of communicating that are not easy to track.

What worries me is that U.S. 'intelligence,' is taking the view that technology (and the invasiveness that comes with it) will offer a panacea to the current terrorist threat. I'm probably not the first to remind anyone that even WITH all the technology currently utilized by the US military, it has still been unable to bring down a man who lives in caves.

I agree with you...it's not a question of if, but when the current data surveillance/collection efforts will be repurposed to suit some other, unrelated interest.

From what I read in the article, the house and senate have voiced oposition. But it goes on to say, "The only obstacles to the provision becoming law would be the failure of the conferees to reach agreement on the overall spending bill in which it is included, or a successful veto of the bill by President Bush."
Looks as if it could still go through.

And he'd be an idiot to veto his own budget bill; that almost never happens.

Good god. THINK about who you're talking about. GWB IS and idiot. Really. He is an honest to god moron. I wish I could recall the commentator who said it...in the local paper several weeks ago was an item by a CONSERVATIVE commentator who spent some time at the White House covering GW and buds. He indicated that Bush lacks any and all curiousity about anything that he is ignorant of (cultures, technology, etc). He doesn't read - except for the bible and THAT doesn't count for shit. He barely made it through college, there by virtue of his father's coattails. His FATHER, though a dork, was intelligent. Clinton, though a fool, was frickin brilliant. Bush junior, well, let's face it. He is Cletus from the Simpson's.

idiot [reference.com] - A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers.

moron [reference.com] - A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education.

Bush, Jr., may not be the best public speaker, but he does not fit the above definitions.

Bush, Sr., was by your own words intelligent, and therefore that negates this, unless you meant the latter definition, in which case I thought he had one, but maybe I was mistaken about his particular features.

fool [reference.com] - One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.

idiot [reference.com] - A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers.

moron [reference.com] - A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education.

Bush, Jr., may not be the best public speaker, but he does not fit the above definitions.

fool [reference.com] - One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.

Yeah, you described Clinton well there.

Cute. My side's wise and intellegent, but your side's full of fools and idiots. Maybe you should open your eyes and actually look at these people; there's fools and idiots, wise men and geniuses on both sides.

Even if they don't look at it right now, they can always change the laws later and go back and read your e-mail then.

Storage is cheap, and tape is cheap. The one protection you might have is that they only have backups on tapes and that the tapes go bad after a few years. But if they back up onto optical media, they basically have a record of all your e-mails for all eternity.

Heck, I run a mail server and a backup server for my company. It's really handy when an IMAP user accidentally deletes an e-mail. I can just go back and restore that mailbox for them. Even for something a year old.

The point is, just because the law says you are safe this instant doesn't mean squat. All that you do is recorded. If you don't like that, then use something like nonymouse.com and/or PGP.

i was under the impression that you cannot prosecute people for acts committed before they were made a crime. anyone have any info on that?

It called "ex post facto" and it is a major part of the US Constitution. No law can be passed to make that provision irrelevant either, it would take a Constitutional amendment to. Ex Post Facto (latin, roughly translated: after the fact) is one of the basic parts of our freedom, and what seperates us from non-democratic societies.

The goal of the FBI in wiretapping isn't to arrest terrorists, its to find out what is being planned and attempt to prevent or derail it. Many of these individuals *could* be exported as enemy combatants anyway (quietly, Im sure) if they are not US citizens.

I hate to say it, but I would characterize your definition of "ex post facto" as the reassuring version.
What I worry about is the redefinition of crimes that already exist. For example, treason is currently illegal. It seems all too plausible to suppose that at some future date, acts which are not now considered treasonous may be redefined as high crimes. In fact, an argument can be made that this has already happened in the case of the so-called American Taliban. That poor confused idiot went over there to fight the infidels for Allah back when our government was praising the Taliban for stopping opium cultivation. Our government was cheerfully giving those freaks over 40 million bucks and a bunch of attaboys.

Next thing he knows, he's arrested for treason, even though it's really doubtful he had anything to do with the terrorist attacks, and so far as I know, no one saw him shooting at Americans.

I know, I know. It would still be unConstitutional to arrest a citizen for things that weren't technically illegal when he did them. Unfortunately, this seems not to matter too much to the Justice Department these days, since the Supreme Court has become a rubber stamp for various political agendas. Expedience seems to be more important than justice. After all, We're At Wartm.

Maybe, but that's kinda like saying that the majority of phone calls are personal and of no consequence to national security. That may be true, but you still don't want anyone listening in. Privacy is privacy. Would you let the government put a camera in your house, even if it was only trained on a dusty corner of the floor? Just because the information is inconsequential, doesn't mean its not yours alone.

...the Bride of USAPATRIOT [com.com] is on the sidelines, with Johnny Ashcroft and his minions rooting for it.
One step forward, four steps back.
But hey, anything goes as long as you can make the public vagely believe, or even not dispute too much, that it'll help them get Osama Bin Laden.

This is indeed wonderful news, and can be taken as a victory for people who worry about the potential for the abuse of this kind of aggregated personal information.

But there are still many, many other ways in which personal information is aggregated and analyzed, without the benefit of an oversight committee, or even significant regulation. So I'm still worried.

And I have another creeping worry: what if convicted felon Poindexter might have actually done some good with his (admittedly grotesque, and probably wildly impractical) database?

I mean, I'm always the first to howl about how those who give up freedom to gain a little security deserve neither, but does anybody else wonder about this? I mean, things are getting a little tense in the world these days.

Lt. Cmdr. Donald Sewell, a Pentagon spokesman, defended the program, saying, "The Department of Defense still feels that it's a tool that can be used to alert us to terrorist acts before they occur." He added, "It's not a program that snoops into American citizens' privacy."

*cough* Bull$hit *cough*

Of course it "snoops" into American citizens' privacy, that's the primary mission of DARPA and TIA.

They care about themselves. The executive branch is increasingly refusing to even CONSULT with Congress regarding these admittedly outrageous plans. But you'd be wrong to think that they're blocking this because they give a shit about your rights. They just want to be included... to make sure they have a hand in everything. In this case they're just exercising their right to refuse to fund ANY project in an attempt to get the WH to play ball with them. Otherwise they're going to take their ball and bat and go home, I guess.

Senators and Congresspersons are just as vulnerable to these insane surveillance proposals as anyone else. And since the military is answerable to the executive branch, if I were a minority member of Congress (Democrats now, perhaps the Republicans in four or eight years) I would be particularly worried that these tools would be used to prop up whomever held the White House, now or in the future. They're just as concerned about their rights as you are about yours.

I've known a few Representatives; they really do try to do what they consider as best for their constituents. Sometimes, it's just that the most visible of their constituents are big corporations and special-interest groups. But they're certainly not interested in giving up their rights to some giant Pentagon surveillance apparatus any more than you are.

'agreed not to allow email surveillance of American citizens' Maybe they did it not in the interests of the public but simply because they don't want the FBI reading their email. It just seems more likely to me that, as a group, they are motivated more by self-interest than anything else.

From the article:"One important factor in the breadth of the opposition is the fact that the project is headed by retired Adm. John Poindexter. Several members of Congress have said he is an unwelcome symbol because he was convicted of lying to Congress when he was President Ronald Reagan's national security adviser. That his conviction was reversed on the grounds that he had been given immunity for the testimony in which he lied did not mitigate congressional opinion, they said."

Oh, suuuure you promise it wouldn't be used to violate citizens' privacy. We believe you.

The program could be employed in support of lawful military operations outside the United States and lawful foreign intelligence operations conducted against non-U.S. citizens.

I'm a little fuzzy on what "lawful" military operations could possibly mean... Almost any military operation would be illegal in a country that it was being performed upon. For example, in countries that offer their citizens a right to privacy and security of person, I can't see how something like this *would* be legal in those countries.

I have a middle-eastern last name, does that mean I'm going to be watched?

I would say more, but I'm liable to start on a rant that could start a whole mess of arguments I'm not interested in pursuing.

If you read the article, how much more additional funding is needed? The equipment is already purchased, the systems are in place. Yes, they need to pay for expansion, and upkeep, (In other words the rest of the ROI), but that usually is much easier to get than the initial purchase.

I just got done writing 4 letters to my Congressmen about the Pariot Act 2 and war with Iraq. I know it is easier to post online about how something should be done, but it only took about an hour to go out, get stamps and envelopes, and write.

Perhaps take this as a chance to thank your Senator/Representative for voting against this (if they did!), and maybe even let them know your views on the Patriot Act 2, etc.

but this acticle only says a provision has been made that the surveillance information is not to be used against American Citizens and the bill is likely to pass unless Bush vetoes it or the spending is not approved.

The only obstacles to the provision becoming law would be the failure of the conferees to reach agreement on the overall spending bill in which it is included, or a successful veto of the bill by President Bush.

Is therefore safe to assume the Pentagon feels entitled to surveil the rest of the worlds population on the off chance they may spot a terrorist at some point ? I'm not trying to flame here but the article seemed a little short on fact and I am unclear as to the levels of surveillance the bill supports in its current form. If I understand it the overall plan has not actually been killed, just subjected to more congressional oversight and currently exempts American Citizens

Is therefore safe to assume the Pentagon feels entitled to surveil the rest of the worlds population on the off chance they may spot a terrorist at some point?

Yes they do feel entitled, and they have been doing it for some time - at least since the end of WWII. How do you think they get all those voice intercepts that have been playing at the UN recently?

Really it shouldn't be that surprising that the rights established by the US constitution, or US legislation, don't apply to non-citizens who are not in the US. It would be kinda weird if they did. The US is not the world government yet.

According to a slightly more inclusive NYTimes article [nytimes.com] I read on this earlier today, one of Iowa's senators - Charles Grassley - co-sponsored the bill. I wrote him a letter this morning thanking him for it. It's the first time ever I've felt like I had a reason to do so.

I appreciated his quote from the article,

"Protecting Americans' civil liberties while at the same time winning the war against terrorism has got to be top priority for the United States. Congressional oversight of this program will be a must as we proceed in the war against terror. The acceptance of this amendment sends a signal that Congress won't sit on its hands as the TIA program moves forward."

An explicit arrangement like that would not work. If a US agency is not allowed to do something then typically they are not allowed to get someone else to do it for them. Of course if the British happened to be spying on US citizens, and they happened to come up with some useful intelligence, then they could share it.

Actually that isn't as bad as it might sound at first. Foreign governments do not have the same opportunities to spy on you, it is illegal for them to do so, so you can seek legal redress if they do, and intelligence gathered that way cannot be used as evidence against you in your own country. All things considered, if the Feds really wanted to know something about you then it would be easier just to get a search warrant.

What scares me about all this is that in the future they can start this activity by just repealing the legislation that prohibits this surveillance in the first place. Someone needs to step up and get a consensus that this is flat-out unconstitutional and declare it as such, and make it clear that this kind of surveillance will never be allowed. Furthermore, anyone who proposes such a program should be expelled from the House or the Senate for violating their oath.

Jihad to Microsoft! Linux has risen in an explosive blaze of fury! I like VX works. Food tastes good with ricin it. Death to BUSH using new hedge trimmers. 90% off swedish made penis enlargers! (Which is what they're really looking for)

House and Senate negotiators have agreed that a Pentagon project intended to detect terrorists by monitoring e-mail and commercial databases for health, financial and travel information cannot be used against Americans

So, American agencies have some limitations on how they may spy on American citizens. Likewise UK agencies may not spy on UK subjects. Fair enough, until those two agree to swap notes, so US spies on Brits (freely and legally) and the Brits spy on the yankees (freely and legally).

I think we need some international treaty, on the level of the Geneva convention, that limits the sharing of "intelligence" information to the level that would have been legal to obtain if it had been done by local authorities. And strong (death?) penalties to those who break the convention.

If he really wants to read my email, I'm going to sign up for all the pr0n spam I can get. Let that puritanical a$$hole freak show and his Christian Soldiers(TM) sort through all the live cams, teen fetishes, fisting sessions, and goatse.cx pics they can get:)

Apparenlty few read the article (including the poster) before replying.

If all take a moment to read any of the 3 articles published today reporting the conferees agreement, it should be clear that the agreement does not prohibit surveillance of electronic communication between US citizens.

The agreement addresses the use of the data collected in prosecuting citizens and includes congressional oversight of further funding and reasearch but does not prohibit the evesdropping.

Doesn't the house propose laws, then vote on weather or not they should be sent to the senate, where they are voted upon to become law? Isn't this how it's been done for over 200 years in the US?

Granted, it's really hard to pass a law if either the house OR the senate are in disagreement. Of course, it can be voted in if there's an overwhelming majority in the other direction. Of course, given the state of American political parties, that would be highly unlikely.

I really don't get it when it comes to the big fuss over this Total Information Awareness. The structure to do it is already in place and it comes in two forms, AOL and AIM. All the government has to do is set up an account, add everyone to their buddy list and hire some goons to check away messages, you always know where people are by their away messages. How easy is this, and it's free too!

I was thinking about this this morning after my mom called up and was worried because bush wanted everyone to have 3 days of supplies. This is probably what it felt like to live in the 50's. The old duck, and cover.

Anyway, What I am saying is that now only is this the new cold war, but the Old Cold War Warriors are back witha vengence. Rumsfield, McNamara.

The only good thing I can see about all of this is that the country will experience another revolution (like the 60's following the 50's) and maybe this action that congress took is a first step.

You can see it here [userfriendly.org]. Also, there's lots of encrypted communications programs or file transfer programs out there, if you feel the need for it. Stenograhy works too. Bin Laden was sending people to aviator school. Why wouldn't he be sending someone to do a CS degree in encryption and stenography too?

You may keep strong encryption out of the hands of the general public, because they have no real interest in it. But for a determined group, the cat is out of the bag many years ago. Throwing together some AES + SHA + Diffie-Hellman reference code I could probably make a secure tool before the end of business today. And I'm hardly an expert on the subject...

Actually the Star Tribune is a Minnesota paper, based in Minneapolis. As its reach is far and wide (I have seen it in Chicago, and Idaho), I would beg to differ with your view that the StarTrib is "some obscure Wisconsin paper."

I hate to point out the obvious, but come on - there are links to Jesse Ventura, Paul Wellstone, Minnesota poll, Minnesota House and the Minnesota Senate on the left side.

I wouldn't break your pom poms for government out quite yet. Essentially, when laws that hurt the masses get rejected, it's because they hurt the elites as well. The reason this one got killed is because the people who make laws would have been hit hard too. They have as much to lose as we do when it comes to privacy. When laws that benefit politicians start getting turned down (e.g. they kill the DMCA despite risking a loss of RIAA donation money), then perhaps we can celebrate.